First of all, please keep this thread about the technology and architecture and save the political bullshit for the Skybar. I think we're all gown up enough to handle that.

Quote:

George W. Bush library's blueprints filled with green, following trend of other big public buildings08:24 AM CDT on Sunday, March 14, 2010
By RANDY LEE LOFTIS / The Dallas Morning Newsrloftis@dallasnews.com

A big environmental change is coming to a muddy, skinned-off patch of former condominium land jammed up against one of Dallas' busiest freeways.

Native prairies, oaks and wildflowers, reminders of North Texas' natural past, are destined for the site's future. So, too, is a new building of nearly a quarter-million square feet that planners promise will meet the highest environmental and energy standards.

Details are just emerging about the environmental aspects of the George W. Bush Presidential Center, which will rise between Southern Methodist University's campus and North Central Expressway. Groundbreaking for the center, which will house the former president's archives, foundation, institute and a museum, is expected late this year.

The center's 23-acre tract will include native plants and sophisticated conservation measures, such as a wetland and underground cisterns to catch and recycle most rainwater. The building, made of Texas materials over cast concrete, will get nearly 10 percent of its electricity and all of its hot water from solar energy.
.
.
. Certification push

The project aims to earn a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design platinum certification, the highest rating offered by the U.S. Green Building Council, which promotes energy-efficient construction with low-toxicity materials. Former President Bill Clinton's library in Little Rock, Ark., has LEED platinum certification.

To reduce energy use, the Bush building will have energy-efficient windows, heating and air conditioning, in addition to window overhangs to provide shade. Solar power will provide hot water and some electricity.

I don't know how one can separate the Bush/Cheney legacy from Big Oil and pollution and thus this building. The building itself is a "political statement", filled with so much misrepresentation. It's especially ironic to read about native species which Bush&Co. spent much time trying to delist from protection.

A Presidential Library is about the President first and the architecture second. In which case this should be a bunker surrounded by empty fields.

Drawing allusions to Texas habitats was important to the Bushes, Langdale said. The couple's ranch house in Crawford, which they built in 1999, incorporates green steps such as capturing rainwater and using natural breezes for ventilation, he said.

This is the best quote. The Crawford Ranch dates from 1999. All that brush clearing and dragging world leaders out there came from somebody trying to be Texan while also trying to become and own the Presidency. This theme is more a product of Karl Rove than GW Bush. I doubt the Crawford Ranch was serving the King of Saudi Arabia "captured rainwater" nor soothing Sarkozy with "natural breezes". The whole idea that GW loved his ranch was a lark. Where is he now, in Crawford?

This is the best quote. The Crawford Ranch dates from 1999. All that brush clearing and dragging world leaders out there came from somebody trying to be Texan while also trying to become and own the Presidency. This theme is more a product of Karl Rove than GW Bush. I doubt the Crawford Ranch was serving the King of Saudi Arabia "captured rainwater" nor soothing Sarkozy with "natural breezes". The whole idea that GW loved his ranch was a lark. Where is he now, in Crawford?

GW was born in CT with a pedigree.

George W. lives in Dallas now & his parents have lived in Houston for many years. He still has his ranch in Crawford.

BTW Obama isn't "from" Chicago either. In fact, its not totally clear where he is originally from or even if he is a true Christian as he claims he is. He was a senator for less time than it takes to become a manager at Wal-Mart.

George W. lives in Dallas now & his parents have lived in Houston for many years. He still has his ranch in Crawford.

BTW Obama isn't "from" Chicago either. In fact, its not totally clear where he is originally from or even if he is a true Christian as he claims he is. He was a senator for less time than it takes to become a manager at Wal-Mart.

Bluebonnets bloom on the grounds of the George W. Bush Presidential Center
Thursday, April 4, 2013 in University Park. (G.J. McCarthy/The Dallas Morning News)

The George W. Bush Presidential Center has accomplished a first for a presidential library, earning a platinum certification for new construction from the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program.

“As we approach the Bush Center’s April 25 dedication, we are proud to be recognized for our emphasis on sustainable building design,” said Mark Langdale, president of the George W. Bush Foundation.

The LEED certification, which highlights sustainable building design and construction, has long been a goal for the Bush Center. Platinum, the highest rating, was particularity ambitious given the center’s size and the tools it needs for its voluminous archive.

George W. lives in Dallas now & his parents have lived in Houston for many years. He still has his ranch in Crawford.

BTW Obama isn't "from" Chicago either. In fact, its not totally clear where he is originally from or even if he is a true Christian as he claims he is. He was a senator for less time than it takes to become a manager at Wal-Mart.

Where do you claim you're from, and what is your religion? Might it be unclear??

Maybe it's unavoidable with a building like this, but I've noticed that a lot of the architectural criticism of the library attempts to discredit neo-classicism/traditionalism by tying it politically to conservatism/fascism, and vice-versa attaching (perhaps Stern's deliberate) allusions to fascist architecture to Bush's presidential record.

Clearly architecture can be an instrument of politics, but dismissing an entire type of architecture a priori, due to politics strikes me as ridiculous and weak-minded.

In fact, its not totally clear where he is originally from or even if he is a true Christian as he claims he is. He was a senator for less time than it takes to become a manager at Wal-Mart.

Wholly shit, birther alert!!

__________________The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth GalbraithWe must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.Elie Wiesel

Maybe it's unavoidable with a building like this, but I've noticed that a lot of the architectural criticism of the library attempts to discredit neo-classicism/traditionalism by tying it politically to conservatism/fascism, and vice-versa attaching (perhaps Stern's deliberate) allusions to fascist architecture to Bush's presidential record.

Clearly architecture can be an instrument of politics, but dismissing an entire type of architecture a priori, due to politics strikes me as ridiculous and weak-minded.

Architecture has always been political. Especially when it comes to talking about architecture that memorializes leaders. That being said, having been to a few presidential libraries, this one seems to be one of the most uninspiring buildings I have seen. It is not the fact that it is neo-traditional, but rather that even at that it isn't a great neo-traditional building. In fact, it isn't even the best building in SMU's campus.

Architecture has always been political. Especially when it comes to talking about architecture that memorializes leaders. That being said, having been to a few presidential libraries, this one seems to be one of the most uninspiring buildings I have seen. It is not the fact that it is neo-traditional, but rather that even at that it isn't a great neo-traditional building. In fact, it isn't even the best building in SMU's campus.

Not arguing the point about politics and architecture, but rather the discrediting of either politics by architectural association or architecture by political association. Both are shallow thinking, or worse a spurious attempt to elevate subjective opinion with historical fact.